The League Of Nations Flashcards
(45 cards)
What, in essence, was the League of Nations?
The League of Nations was an international peacekeeping organisation based in neutral territory (Geneva, Switzerland) which, from its first meeting in 1920, had as its main aim the prevention of war. The League lasted officially until 1946, when it voted to dissolve itself and pass its main functions over to the United Nations.
That there would be a League of Nations in the first place was written into the Treaty of Versailles (and also into the four other peace treaties we have studied). The rules or ‘articles’ of the League, known as the Covenant (a covenant is a set of rules that member countries agree to follow), were also included in the treaties.
Why was there support for a League of Nations by 1918?
- Support for the League of Nations in 1918 is directly traceable to the worldwide wave of revulsion at the appalling loss of life in WWI. Millions of soldiers and civilians had died in the “The war to end all wars” because it had been a world war (the great European powers had colonies and drew on them for manpower and raw materials), because the slaughter had been on an industrialised scale, and because the participants had waged ‘total war’ in a desperate effort to win (e.g. using mass conscription for the first time).
- People now demanded something new in international relations. They pinned their hopes on the “League of Nations” to preserve world peace. The original idea was not Woodrow Wilson’s, but he championed it at the end of WWI, and as he was the leader of the most powerful country in the world (US help had been crucial in defeating Germany), his triumphant tour en route to Paris for the Peace Conference had helped to create enthusiasm for the League, so he deserves much of the credit for there being such widespread support for the League (as was recognised in 1919, when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts).
What were the main aims of the League?
The main aim of the League of Nations, stated in the Covenant and therefore written into the early clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, was the prevention of war. This was to be achieved through:
• The disarmament of nations (and the reduction of the arms trade)
• The application of the principle of ‘collective security’ (i.e. the belief that all
nations standing together must be stronger than a single aggressor)
• The peaceful, open arbitration of disputes between nations (in the Assembly
of the League, in the International Court of Justice, or in special conferences)
What was the structure of the League of Nations?
- There were 32 original members of the League, rising to a peak of 58 in 1934- 35.
- Germany, forced to sign the ‘War Guilt’ clause, was not allowed to join until she had proved that she would honour the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and behave in a peaceful, civilised fashion (she was eventually allowed to join in 1926, after signing the Locarno Pact in 1925, in which she agreed not to try to reverse the terms of the Versailles Treaty).
- Russia was not allowed to join, because she was a Communist state. By the time she joined in 1934 (after Hitler had come to power – this is why she was allowed to join), Russia was known as the USSR.
- The USA did not join the League of Nations.
Why did the USA not join the League of Nations?
- The Democrat Wilson’s neglect of domestic politics had cost him control of Congress to the Republicans. This was significant because it made it hard to persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve the Treaty of Versailles, which the US Constitution required of all treaties concluded by presidents with foreign powers.1
- Leading Republicans like the Senate Majority Leader and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Henry Cabot Lodge opposed the League, especially Article X of the Covenant, which committed the USA to going to war on behalf of any League member state attacked by an aggressor. In post-war USA, belief in isolationism was strong: Americans did not see why they should die in their thousands for European quarrels that had nothing to do with them.
- Republicans and Democrats alike were concerned about the financial cost to the US of keeping the global peace, as well as the cost in lives. Millions of Americans (not just German-Americans) had opposed US entry into WWI in the first place. The above factors were important because they caused opposition to US membership of the League to begin organising itself against Wilson even before he left America for Paris to negotiate the peace treaty.2
- Congress was unhappy at India being a member of the League of Nations, because it was not an independent country, and Wilson’s own view had been that member-states should be self-governing: Republican politicians asked: “Why is part of the British Empire allowed to join when Britain is already a member?”
- One further reason was Wilson’s own stubbornness and personal dislike of Lodge: he refused to cut deals with the Republicans or make concessions even on a single clause. He insisted that they accept everything, so they accepted nothing. This was very important because if he had made even some limited concessions, he could have got a majority for most of the Treaty, which would have got the USA into the League. In the end, he lost by just 14 votes.
- By 1920, Wilson was old, sick (he had a stroke while touring the USA to promote the League) and bitter: he felt he had achieved great things in Paris and that Congress should recognise this. The Republicans in Congress disagreed: the first-ever president, George Washington, had warned fellow Americans in his farewell speech to avoid dangerous entanglements with foreign powers, and the Republicans intended to follow his advice. Later that year, the Republican Warren Harding was elected president on an anti- League platform, winning with slogans like ‘America first’: this shows that isolationism was a popular policy.
Why was it such a blow to the League that the USA did not join?
- The USA was the world’s strongest military and economic power and also a powerful moral force. Its absence from the first-ever international peacekeeping movement, whose machinery for punishing aggression involved moral, economic and military sanctions, was serious, arguably fatal: potential aggressors would be less likely to be deterred by the thought of League sanctions as they would not involve conflict with the USA.
- The absence of the USA mean that three of the world’s strongest military powers, the USA, Germany and Russia (the former an actual military power, the latter two past and potentially future ones) were not members of the League from the start.
How was the League structured?
The League’s complicated structure reflects the fears and desires of the great powers, all of whom, until 1926, were victors in WWI – hence the accusation that the League was just a “winners’ club”. Great Britain and France in particular did not want to be drawn into a war by a smaller nation, especially if the dispute was far from Europe and did not directly involve their interests. But to have any hope of success, the League had to have a wide membership, so the smaller nations had to be convinced that there was something in it for them. The League’s eventual structure was therefore an uneasy, resentment-inducing compromise:
The LoN - The Assembly
The Assembly was the League’s ‘parliament’. It met once a year and each member country had one vote. Its jobs were to elect members to the Council, to vote on the League’s budget and to admit new members to the League. It could recommend action to the Council, but it could not insist on action being followed. Its recommendations had to be unanimous (e.g. all member countries had to agree to them).
The LoN-The Council
The Council’s role was to act as the executive body of the League (i.e. it was to the Council that the League’s members looked to get things done). The Council, not the Assembly, took the real decisions in the League of Nations. Since the main purpose of the League was to keep or restore peace in the world, this meant that the Council’s main function was to settle international disputes. Officially, it met three times a year but it could also meet in emergencies. It was made up of permanent members (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and - from 1926 - Germany) and temporary ones, elected for three years. The decisions of the Council had to be unanimous. Permanent members could veto (from the Latin ‘I forbid’) decisions they didn’t like. This was a system devised by the great powers to make sure that they could not be forced to go to war on behalf of a small state in a remote location.
The LoN - The Permanent Court of International Justice
The Court was based in The Hague, in the Netherlands. It was made up of 15 judges from different countries (i.e. with different legal systems). Its roles were to rule in disputes between countries and to give legal advice to the Assembly and the Council. The potential strength of the Court was that it provided an important new mechanism for solving territorial disputes without resorting to war (this would always have been useful, but it was particularly vital after WWI because the Peace Treaties had made so many territorial adjustments). Its weakness was that it had no way of making sure its rulings were obeyed or its advice followed.
The LoN - The Secretariat:
The Secretariat worked for the League all year round, kept records of meetings and prepared reports for the different parts of the League, like the Council, the Assembly, and the various committees on issues like health and disarmament. Its strength was that its staff consisted of several hundred experts in the areas the League dealt with. Its potential weakness was that it was quite a large bureaucracy, which meant that it operated slowly.
The LoN - Special Departments Commissions
These commissions had responsibility for all the areas the League was concerned with issues which, in their own way, were also important to peacekeeping, like health and the treatment of minority populations, and also the administration of the former colonies of the Central Powers and their allies in WW1. The strength of a League Commission was that it could take responsibility for a single issue and focus on it. The potential weakness was that it could make little progress on an issue unless individual countries themselves were convinced that progress was in their own interests.
What was the League’s Machinery for Keeping the Peace if an act of aggression was committed?
- The country which had been invaded or attacked could complain to the League, which could meet in special session and debate the issue in the Assembly (in theory, a three month ‘cooling off period’ could give the aggressor time to change his mind, or make both sides willing to negotiate)
- The dispute could theoretically be resolved in the International Court of Justice, acting as an arbitrator (the problem with this mechanism was that the Court had no power to enforce its decisions).
- A Commission of Inquiry could be set up to investigate the dispute and report back to the Assembly with recommendations (the potential problem with this was that the investigation would take too long, giving the aggressor time to complete his conquest and present the League with a fait accomplit).
LoN - Moral Sanctions
• Moral Sanctions – stating publicly that the aggressor’s actions were wrong. This was considered essential because it allowed the League to occupy the moral high ground in the eyes of the world. It was also intended to give the aggressor time to reflect on the error of his ways, in the hope that he would withdraw his army.
The LoN - Economic Sanctions
• Economic Sanctions – refusing to trade with the aggressor, especially in war materials. The thinking behind this was that (a) the lack of war materials would bring the aggressor’s invasion to a halt, and (b) even if it did not, the economic hardship suffered by his people would cause them to put irresistible pressure on him to end the war and resume trade with member states.
The LoN - Military Sanctions
• Military Sanctions – making war on the aggressor. This was the sanction of last resort, and in theory it was failsafe, because the effective application of collective security would lead to the aggressor being hopelessly outmatched. But the League had no standing army (i.e. an army that was permanently in existence, ready to be sent where it was needed to punish aggression). In the absence of the USA, if Britain and France were unwilling to supply troops, military sanctions were impossible.
What was the Disarmament Commission and was it successful?
Article 8 of the League’s Covenant stated that countries should disarm “to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety”. The problem was convincing countries that the weapons they already had were enough and that they did not need any more. This was difficult given great powers rivalries in regions like the Pacific, where America, Britain and Japan were suspicious of each other’s naval power. Economic necessity more than the persuasiveness of the Disarmament Commission led to the Washington Naval Convention of 1922, which halted the building of capital ships for 10 years. In 1929, the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war (Kellogg, like Wilson before him, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize), but it was one thing for the US Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement signed by 15 nations outlawing war: it was quite another for him to prevent war; the Pact was nothing more than a declaration of intent. The Wall St Crash and the Great Depression helped force Japan to invade Manchuria and it also brought Hitler to power in Germany. This doomed League’s World Disarmament Conference of 1932-4 to failure, so the Disarmament Commission cannot be considered a success. At best, it might be considered a well-meaning, even heroic failure.
How successful was The ILO (International Labour Organisation)?
The ILO was one of the League’s major non-peacekeeping successes:
• It campaigned successfully to have poisonous white lead removed from paint
• It persuaded some countries to adopt an 8-hour day/40-hour week
• It had success in ending child labour in many countries
• It had success in persuading ship owners to take responsibility for accidents
involving their own seamen
• It had success in increasing women’s rights in the workplace
How successful was the Health Organisation (now the World Health Organisation)?
The Health Organisation could also point to major successes:
• Success in reducing the spread of leprosy (in particular), malaria and yellow fever
• Success in reducing typhus epidemics (working with the Soviet Union)
• Success in proving a forum for discussion/agreement on common policies on
treatment of diseases, hospital design and health education.
How successful was The Slavery Commission?
The Slavery Commission also had solid achievements to its credit:
• It did not succeed in ending slavery which is still with us today), but it did have slavery officially abolished in several countries in the 1920s and 1930s, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Bahrain.
• It was also successful in pressurizing countries which controlled former colonies of the Central Powers under a mandate to abolish slavery there. If countries wanted to join the League (e.g. Ethiopia, in 1926) and those countries still had slavery, the League’s Slavery Commission was in a strong position to make abolition of slavery a condition of membership.
• The death rate building the Tanganyka Railway in Africa was 50% among Black workers. The League brought it down to 4%.
How successful was The Refugees Commission?
This Commission did very impressive work, especially in the aftermath of WWI, when the dislocation of war had caused enormous refugee problems. As many as three million soldiers were displaced, many stranded in Eastern Europe, thousands of miles from their homes:
• The famous Norwegian explorer Nansen helped at least 400,000 refugee- soldiers return home in the first two years.
• He also created the so-called ‘Nansen passport’, which gave stateless people a means of identification.
How successful was The Economic Committee?
• The Economic Committee’s task was to persuade countries to abandon the protectionist policies which had helped to create dangerous tension between countries whose economies had suffered because they had not been able to sell their goods. The Committee was tasked with promoting the idea of a world as a gigantic free trade zone instead. It staged two international conferences (one in 1927, before the Wall St, Crash, and one in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression), but the nationalist demand for protectionism was too strong for the Committee to make progress
How successful was The Mandates Commission?
Germany and Turkey – two of the defeated powers in WWI – had overseas empires. What would happen to these territories after the War? Who would rule them? Would they rule themselves? Would the victorious Allied Powers add them to their empires? This would be hard to reconcile with numbers 5 and 12 of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points which favoured self-determination and ‘no annexations’, as Wilson had put it in a speech. He distrusted the old empires of Europe and suspected (rightly) that they wanted to divide up the German and Turkish empires between themselves. Other victorious powers like Japan and Italy (and also British dominions like Australia and New Zealand) coveted German territory in the Pacific and East Africa, and Wilson knew this, too.
In the end, it was decided that these territories would NOT be added to the empires of the Allies as it would make the victors look too hypocritical. Instead, under Article 22 of the Covenant, they would be administered by them as League of Nations Mandates’ (a mandate in this context refers both to the territory itself, and also to the authority invested by the League in a country to allow it to govern a territory). To oversee this process, a Permanent Mandates Commission was established in 1919 at Geneva, the League’s eventual headquarters.
The Mandates were divided into different classes: A, B and C Mandates according to each colony’s level of development. Class A Mandates were some of Turkey’s former colonies in the Middle East, like Palestine (which went to Britain) and Syria (which went to France). Class B Mandates were German colonies in West and Central Africa. Class C Mandates were the German colonies in the Pacific.
The Mandates Commission also took responsibility for administering Danzig and the Saar region (it was the League which oversaw the plebiscite in 1935 in which the Saarlanders were allowed to decide whether they wanted to belong to Germany, France or be administered by the League).
What were the weaknesses of the Mandates Commission?
- The Germans and Turks bitterly resented these arrangements. Article 22 described Mandates as “a sacred trust of civilisation”, but the Germans saw it simply as theft. This fuelled resentment at the Treaty and the League and it helps explain support for the Nazis and other right-wing parties in post-war Germany.
- The USA also resented the arrangements, especially as America did not join the League of Nations. The USA’s objection was that while Britain and France claimed that all the victorious powers had approved of the way in which German and Turkish former colonies had been divided up, this was not the case: Britain and France had acted without consultation and to suit themselves. The Mandates settlement helps to explain why the USA instructed its overseas officials not to co-operate with the League in the immediate post-war period.